I've used the Burris XTR II 5-25 quite a bit at a shooting range in Yuma. The glass is good, clear, but I did notice some chromatic aberration, fuzzy edge (a sample of one, cannot comment on consistency) , mechanicals are excellent, adjustment range is excellent, I like the reticle... overall a good, solid, scope. It has been a long time since I've used a SS equivalent, so my memory is shaky. My recollection is that, as with every SS product I've used, mechanicals/adjustment range are superior, glass is very good, a great value and tough as nails.

When you say you're shooting from a bench, what is your priority... is it:

1. Shooting at paper for group size, seeking the smallest groups possible?

2. Shooting at bullseyes or other small targets for fun, requiring extreme precision?

3. Shooting at steel, where you're just looking for the "clang" feedback signifying a hit?

4. Doing primarily one or more of the above, but also occasionally hunting with this rifle?

If #1 or #2, then magnification is your friend, and perhaps you can give up some optical quality in exchange for more magnification, and the physical size of the scope isn't an issue like it would be on an all-purpose rifle that was occasionally used for hunting.

If #3 and/or #4, then I would personally go for less magnification than you specify in your OP in exchange for the best optics and mechanical integrity, a little more compact size, along with a good all-purpose reticle.

Do you plan to also shoot at short and intermediate distances, and if so, do you plan to dial to correct for drop? If so, I wouldn't choose any of the scopes you mention.

Given $1K budget:

If all you're doing is trying to shoot itty bitty groups or bullseyes, you're always shooting in good light, you want a fine reticle, and you don't plan to do any elevation turret dialing for drop dope, then I'd probably get a Weaver T24 or T36 fixed power target scope. However, that scope is best suited for a dedicated target/competition rifle, which doesn't describe a sporter weight .280AI.

If you will never use this rifle for hunting, will do some dialing for drop correction, and will be shooting mostly at the furthest distances, I'd probably go with the Sig Tango 4 6-24X50. Or, for better optics and probably a bit better mechanical integrity and (IMO) a better reticle, I'd see if I could sell something for $300 to add to your $1K budget and go with the non-illuminated model of the SWFA SS 5-20X50 HD (around $1300).

If you plan to hunt a fair amount with this rifle, aren't looking to spend a lot of time trying to shoot tiny groups, and will frequently dial for drop correction, I would drop down in magnification and go with the SWFA SS 3-15X42 with Mil Quad reticle. That's a LOT of scope for the money.

1 & 2. Only shoot from a bench and only at paper. Legs and knees won't do kneeling or prone anymore. Also, no hunting any longer. Just can't get around good enough, but really do enjoy shooting from bench.

I searched a thread from some time ago where you stated the cons of switching between rifles. The NF is mounted with a Spuhr one piece, and I thought just move mount and scope to another rail. Really didn't expect good results.

Been shooting at 600 yards for about 2 years now, one with the ATACR. Only go to 20 power at most, on a good day less.

After reading, like the suggest of the SWFA SS. Leaves much to think about.

 Switching between rifles gets old fast, if it can be avoided, it should.

I haven't used the Burris so do not know on that one.

On the Sightmark, don't even think about it!

What is your experience level shooting out to 600 yards?

Have you used the NF already or is it a new acquisition?

Are you planning to run these scopes at the top of the magnification range?

Initial thoughts, with personal disclosure: I don't shoot much from a bench, most of my shooting is improvised positions under field conditions. That said, I shy away from magnification > 20 simply because they are so picky to get behind. I have a few, and they seldom leave the 15-18X range. Also, I don't like watching my heartbeat on the reticle, it is a factor on the squeeze, but I don't like seeing it in my image.

You will be turret-spinning, so stay with stuff that has a reputation for reliable/repeatable mechanicals.

My standard advice is that better glass beats more magnification. I would much prefer an awesome 15X to a slightly above average 20X. My favorite scope is a Tangent Theta 3-15 and, as I don't shoot at things a mile away, it is more than enough mag for me to do anything my piddly 1400-yard gun can do. That said, I own several NightForce, and none are the optical best, but all are on hard-use guns, and glass is more than serviceable. The same can be said for the SWFA SS lines of scopes, better-than-expected glass for the price point, and rock solid mechanical quality.

When you say you're shooting from a bench, what is your priority... is it:

1. Shooting at paper for group size, seeking the smallest groups possible?

2. Shooting at bullseyes or other small targets for fun, requiring extreme precision?

3. Shooting at steel, where you're just looking for the "clang" feedback signifying a hit?

4. Doing primarily one or more of the above, but also occasionally hunting with this rifle?

If #1 or #2, then magnification is your friend, and perhaps you can give up some optical quality in exchange for more magnification, and the physical size of the scope isn't an issue like it would be on an all-purpose rifle that was occasionally used for hunting.

If #3 and/or #4, then I would personally go for less magnification than you specify in your OP in exchange for the best optics and mechanical integrity, a little more compact size, along with a good all-purpose reticle.

Do you plan to also shoot at short and intermediate distances, and if so, do you plan to dial to correct for drop? If so, I wouldn't choose any of the scopes you mention.

Given $1K budget:

If all you're doing is trying to shoot itty bitty groups or bullseyes, you're always shooting in good light, you want a fine reticle, and you don't plan to do any elevation turret dialing for drop dope, then I'd probably get a Weaver T24 or T36 fixed power target scope. However, that scope is best suited for a dedicated target/competition rifle, which doesn't describe a sporter weight .280AI.

If you will never use this rifle for hunting, will do some dialing for drop correction, and will be shooting mostly at the furthest distances, I'd probably go with the Sig Tango 4 6-24X50. Or, for better optics and probably a bit better mechanical integrity and (IMO) a better reticle, I'd see if I could sell something for $300 to add to your $1K budget and go with the non-illuminated model of the SWFA SS 5-20X50 HD (around $1300).

If you plan to hunt a fair amount with this rifle, aren't looking to spend a lot of time trying to shoot tiny groups, and will frequently dial for drop correction, I would drop down in magnification and go with the SWFA SS 3-15X42 with Mil Quad reticle. That's a LOT of scope for the money.

 Switching between rifles gets old fast, if it can be avoided, it should.

I haven't used the Burris so do not know on that one.

On the Sightmark, don't even think about it!

What is your experience level shooting out to 600 yards?

Have you used the NF already or is it a new acquisition?

Are you planning to run these scopes at the top of the magnification range?

Initial thoughts, with personal disclosure: I don't shoot much from a bench, most of my shooting is improvised positions under field conditions. That said, I shy away from magnification > 20 simply because they are so picky to get behind. I have a few, and they seldom leave the 15-18X range. Also, I don't like watching my heartbeat on the reticle, it is a factor on the squeeze, but I don't like seeing it in my image.

You will be turret-spinning, so stay with stuff that has a reputation for reliable/repeatable mechanicals.

My standard advice is that better glass beats more magnification. I would much prefer an awesome 15X to a slightly above average 20X. My favorite scope is a Tangent Theta 3-15 and, as I don't shoot at things a mile away, it is more than enough mag for me to do anything my piddly 1400-yard gun can do. That said, I own several NightForce, and none are the optical best, but all are on hard-use guns, and glass is more than serviceable. The same can be said for the SWFA SS lines of scopes, better-than-expected glass for the price point, and rock solid mechanical quality.